Pages

Monday, March 21, 2011

Daryl Brooks is an accomplished activist, he is a part of the Tea Party (Trenton, New Jersey chapter), and an accomplished blogger; his blog “Today’s News NJ” is ranked among the top 3 in the state of New Jersey. In addition to all of this Brooks attempted to run for UnitedStatesSenate and House of Representatives, in both of which he placed high although he did not win.

If you were to mention Brooks’ name around the city he is the type of guy who people love to hate. Most people admire his activism, but think that he is crazy for his stances on political issues. Others have a different reason for not liking him…. In 1998, Daryl Mikell Brooks was convicted as a sex offender and sent to prison for three years and six months. However, Brooks has maintained that he is innocent since the day that he was accused of the crime.

It has now been nearly 14 years since the crime took place; it has been 12 years since he was convicted and 8 years since he served his prison time. During the time of the crime Brooks was entrenched in activism, “I owned a newspaper (that is now a blog), I was on a radio station, my work in activism entailed me speaking out about police brutality, drugs, and I had a cable TV show.”

Brooks was a young, ambitious 24 year old, wanting to change the violence and injustices that plagued his city. His potential future as an activist would come to an end. Brooks recalls the day that his life got turned upside down.

“ I was with a friend who worked at the Trenton Rehabilitation Center. I would go there to talk to some of the people and I would help him out. I remember going through Martin Luther King Park and stopping to talk to a friend who was a baseball coach and a preacher, then I went home. This was a weekday, I went home and I changed my clothes, picked up my bible and left.”

Brooks says that he was heading home to change his clothes because he was headed to a training for young ministers at Galilee Baptist Church located on Martin Luther King Blvd. Brooks returned home from church only to leave again with a friend. At the time Brooks was staying with his mother.

“I remember coming back home and my mom told me that the cops came there looking for me,” says Brooks. After his mom informed them of the allegations, Brooks took action and called the police himself. The cops then came back. At this point and time Brooks was interested in the individuals who identified him as this character that “flashed himself”. When the officers arrived at the residence where Brooks was staying, they then proceeded to go to the girl’s home who identified him. “When we arrived the cops knocked on the door and there was no one home except the little girls. Then one cop went into the house and I stayed outside, waiting for them. They all come back to the front door and the officer asked one of the girls who did it? She (One of the girls) pointed me out!”

It is alleged by Brooks that the young girls were at home by themselves, “it was between 9:30 and 10 pm and there were no parents at home, that was kind of weird to me that these little girls were at home by themselves with no parents there” says Brooks.

Brooks acknowledges that he was indeed passing through that area around the hours of 5-6 pm. However, he also says, “that it doesn’t make sense for him to do something like that because there was a mini police station in the area.” He adds that the description of the man given by the police and the witness was not him.

“They said that I had a bottle of brandy in my hand” Brooks admits that he does drink, but says, “he would not have had a bottle of brandy walking down the street in front of a mini police station!” He adds that “around the times of 5 to 6 pm there are a lot of people outside.” According to Brooks there were no other witnesses that came forth to identify him.

Despite one of the girls identifying Brooks the officers did not proceed to lock him up. Brook says, that night he was sent back to his mother’s house. In the interview Brooks says, “The little girls were picked up around one week later, they were taken to the police station and questioned by the officers.” According to Brooks there was no attorney present with them. However, according to Brooks 2 weeks later in an incident dealing with a city council man, “I got in an argument… he threatened me. I was then advised to go down to the police station. He now admits that he was a “fool” to follow directions from the ones who had threatened him.

Brooks remembers that as he arrived he was interviewed by Detective Buddy Law. A couple of minutes later he was photographed and added to a photograph line up. It was there that the girls identified Brooks as the perpetrator. This was all done without an attorney present, says Brooks. “They then took pictures of me and she pointed me out in a photo lineup, my lawyer wasn’t even present” says Brooks. He then was taken into custody and charged with 2 counts of sexual assault, 2 counts of endangerment of a child, and 2 counts of lewdness. He posted bail, about $10,000. Brooks, says the chargers were changed because according to him he believes that, “if I was just getting charged with flashing, it would have just stayed in municipal court, I was charged with those charges because then the trial would have to go to superior court.”

The trial would not take place until 1998, almost 3 and a half years later from the time of the incident. “I didn’t take the charge seriously because I figured they didn’t have a case.” As he looks back in regret, “he admits, “I should’ve taken it more seriously” “I thought that there was no real evidence against me.” After it all was said, Daryl Mikel Brooks was found guilty and not charged with the initial charge of flashing, but with, two counts of sexual assault, two counts of endangerment of a child, and two counts of Lewdness. The Prosecutors were aiming to give Brooks 16 years, his lawyer managed to get him a mandatory 7, Brooks was released from prison in three and a half years.

Brooks is out now and believes that he was set up, that it was Trenton political figures who were out to get him. As stated earlier, Brooks was an activist, “I spoke out against the politicians in this city, and they didn’t like me!” There are at least a couple of individuals who have sided with Brooks.

Rabbi Gellar who runs a synagogue in South New Jersey is a friend of Brooks. He met Daryl directly after he was released from prison. He met Daryl in a public transportation area, “I met Daryl reading a political science text book and it peaked my interest. I am a professor, we then started a conversation.” They have been friends ever since. He describes Daryl as idealistic and creative, he also considers Daryl an “asset” to his community. Gellar, who also has a Law Degree from Catholic University, was shown the case by Daryl.

Gellar states, “That anybody could do anything, you or I or anybody could do anything. It’s not purely a question of could anybody do this, it’s a question of did he do anything like this? In terms of the evidence, the evidence points in the opposite direction.” He also says that he has had a very prominent Lawyer in New Jersey view Daryl’s case; his acquaintance, which shall remain nameless, came to the conclusion that Daryl was the victim of an unjust system.

“There is no doubt in my mind that Daryl got shafted,” says Gellar. Gellar is not the only one who seems to think that. One of the jurors in the trial says the same: “It was too many conflicting stories between the police”. When it came down to deliberation, “some people had their mind made up before they came into the courtroom (that Daryl was guilty)”, says the juror. He remembers “There were at least three jurors who thought Daryl was innocent, out of those three, one of them changed their vote to guilty… when I approached the person on why they’d changed their vote, the person replied ‘everyone else said he was guilty so I went along with it.’” The jurors took at least 2 weeks to make the decision.

Daryl is out of prison now and he is looking to move forward with his life, but the crime still haunts him. Currently he is forced to attend counseling and if he does not admit to the crime he can be charged again.“I want my story to be told because people think they know what happened,” says Daryl.

Currently, Daryl heads his own blog, in which it is currently ranked amongst the top 3 in the state of New Jersey. In addition, he was interviewed by Essence Magazine for his participation in Tea Party and he looks to hold community events. Earlier this summer Brooks held an event that entailed panelist that include Rutgers Professor and author Dr. Stephanie Bush-Baskette.

When
children’s behavior crosses the line from playful to rambunctious or even
dangerous, parents place them in Time Outs.
The action is designed to end – at least temporarily – the offending behavior. It
also gives children time to ponder the repercussions of their actions.

After
following the back-and-forth that took place this week between the Governor and
a State Legislator, we now can make a good case for placing some of New
Jersey’s leaders in Time Outs. Although
healthy debates are an essential component of democracy, the exchanges we
witnessed this week simply are unacceptable.

The
exchanges concerned the death of a 21-year old man named Eric Thomas, the
victim of multiple gunshot wounds suffered during a dispute after a house party
in Jersey City. His death is a tragedy; it should not be used by anyone to
score political points.

This is
not to say that we should not ask questions and seek answers about the factors
that led to Thomas’ death. The fact that he allegedly was shot by a man who was
released from prison early under provisions of a state program raises
legitimate questions about that program. Those questions should be explored and
debated in a constructive manner in order to determine whether the program
needs to be altered, eliminated, or kept as is.

Unfortunately,
the dialogue that ensued in the aftermath of the shooting has been anything but
constructive.

It was
Governor Christie who started the discussion by calling for the elimination of
the early release program. Nothing wrong here. He’s the Governor; he makes it
clear what he wants done. But he didn’t stop there.

Christie
then said the early release program was responsible for Thomas’ death. He also
placed blame on Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman, who sponsored the law that
created the program. “It is tragic that because of Assemblywoman Watson
Coleman’s philosophy on crime, that we now have one person who has lost his
life,” Christie told reporters at a news conference.

After
learning of the Governor’s comments, Watson Coleman fired back.

“Governor Christie attempting to
blame me for Mr. Thomas’ death is as ludicrous as me blaming the Governor for
the death of every woman who couldn’t gain access to critical health care
because the Governor eliminated women’s health funding,” she said in a statement.
“Or as preposterous as me blaming the governor for deaths as the result of the
massive police and firefighter layoffs resulting from his policies.”

The Assemblywoman’s point is
well-taken. It is not fair to hold a lawmaker personally responsible for every
action that results from a law he or she sponsored. On the other hand,
politicians are quick to take credit when the laws they sponsor yield positive
results. What type of public scenario would we have seen if the man accused of
killing Thomas had gone on to great success after getting out of prison early
as part of the state’s early release program? Consider the old English proverb:
“Success has many fathers; failure is
an orphan.”

As
troubling as the discourse surrounding this incident has been, it sadly is not
an isolated occurrence. The exchanges between political opponents – at all
levels of government – have reached new lows. Sometimes Republicans emerge as
the winners; other times, it is the Democrats. But regardless of who wins, the
losers always are the citizens who expect – and deserve – better from their
elected officials.

# # #

Richard
A. Lee is Communications Director of the Hall Institute. A former State House
reporter and Deputy Communications Director for the Governor, he also teaches
courses in media, politics and government at RutgersUniversity,
where he is completing work on a Ph.D. in media studies. Read more of Rich’s
columns at richleeonline
and follow him on Twitter.

“That’s what you call winnin’? A n*gga’s nuts in yo’ face? Man, I hate to see what you call losing.” – Riley

From experience, when life flashes before your eyes, time slows down
to a virtual halt. You think about all the mistakes over the years and
pretty much have a full fledged conversation with yourself. Phoenix Suns center Marcin Gortat went through a similar experience Sunday afternoon when he decided to step in front of an elevating Blake Griffin. And here’s the conversation he probably had with himself.

:01 – “Four minutes left in the game? I’m guarding Chris Kaman? And we’re up by 13? F*ck, Charlie Sheen. I’m the one winning.
Wait a minute, has that phrase already passed its shelf life? I mean,
because the Internet is so fast that it gives everyone ADD these days.
Think about it, it seems like that guy with the golden voice was a big news story a year ago. Man, this world is crazy. And why does my nose resemble Lois’ from Family Guy. Like a perfectly cut sandwich. Oh yeah, the basketball game. My fault.”

:03 – “Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! HAKIM! Damnit, he bit on
the pick and roll. We talked about this before the game. This isn’t
going to end good. Lord please let him just lay it up. Please, for the
love of backing into the playoffs, please let him lay it up.”

:06 – “He didn’t lay it up.”
Look, we all know basketball is a team sport;
arguably the ultimate team sport. With that in mind, Gortat deserves a
hell of a lot of credit for doing what many would never dare by putting
his pride to the side and sacrificing his body for the betterment of
the team. The best part of the video may not even be Blake’s dunk
however. Watching Hakim Warrick get truck-sticked and flail his arms in
the air like Ricky when he got shot in Boyz N The Hood all the while laughing at his teammate’s expense was strangely humorous.

What you’re looking at is the October 2010 mug shot of Alyse Lahti Johnson after she was pulled over for DUI. Turns out she’s Tiger Woods‘
new girlfriend proving God really does have a sense of humor after all.
(Those nuclear reactors in Japan? Two days away from launching a fuel
rod into a scientist’s groin. Now that’s comedy!) So not only has Tiger
significantly downgraded from Elin Nordegren who he epically cheated on, but he’s dating a Faces of Meth candidate who’s already blabbing to friends how’s she using him. RadarOnline reports:

“She sent a BBM to a mutual friend of ours saying she
didn’t consider herself Tiger’s girlfriend. They were just having a
good time hooking up,” the source tells us.
“That’s in keeping with Alyse’s personality, the source says. “She is a
really nice girl, smart and super friendly. And she’s also a bit of a
wild child. She definitely likes to have fun.”

Shorter version: She does anal.

Alright, look, I understand Tiger probably doesn’t want anything
serious either, but you’d think with his money he’d be able to buy any
woman he wants, starting with one who doesn’t look like she steals
pills from the elderly during her shift at an Arkansas nursing home. If
I were him, I’d be chasing my ex-wife’s twin sister with a sack full of
diamonds and yacht keys, but that’s just me and my fear of change
coupled with a deep appreciation for Swedish models. Did I mention
she’s also white? Just tossing that out there.

8:16 AM:
Former San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds has arrived at the
federal courthouse where his trial on perjury charges begins today,
seven years after he told a grand jury he never knowingly took
steroids.

Jury selection for his trial is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. in
the court of U.S. District Judge Susan Illston at the Federal Building
on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco.

The selection of the 12 jurors and four alternates will begin with the questioning of an initial pool of 50 prospective jurors.

The trial is expected to last several weeks.

Bonds, 46, is accused of four counts of false statements and one
count of obstruction of justice in testimony before a federal grand
jury on Dec. 4, 2003.

The grand jury was investigating the sale of performance-enhancing drugs by the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or BALCO.

The former San Francisco Giants outfielder set Major League
Baseball's career home-run record of 762 during his last season with
the team in 2007. He hit the single-season record of 73 in 2001.

Bonds is the last of 11 defendants who were charged in federal court
in San Francisco with either illegal drug distribution or lying in
connection with BALCO probe.

Eight defendants - including two BALCO officials, a chemist and
Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson - pleaded guilty to various charges.

Two others - cycling champion Tammy Thomas and Olympic track coach
Trevor Graham - went to trial in Illston's court and were separately
convicted of lying to investigators or the grand jury.

The five counts against Bonds each carry a theoretical maximum
sentence of 10 years in prison if he is convicted. But on similar
charges, Thomas and Graham were sentenced to six months and one year of
home confinement, respectively.

7:28 AM: More than seven years after Barry Bonds told
a grand jury he never knowingly took steroids, the home-run champion is
due to go on trial in federal court in San Francisco Monday on perjury
charges.
Bonds, 46, is accused of four counts of false statements and one
count of obstruction of justice in Dec. 4, 2003, testimony before a
federal grand jury investigating sports drug sales by the Bay Area
Laboratory Co-Operative, or BALCO.

His trial in the court of U.S. District Judge Susan Illston begins
Monday morning with jury selection and is expected to last three or
four weeks.

The former San Francisco Giants outfielder set Major League
Baseball's career home-run record of 762 during his last season with
the team in 2007. He hit the single-season record of 73 in 2001.

Bonds is the last of 11 defendants who were charged in federal court
in San Francisco with either illegal drug distribution or lying in
connection with BALCO probe.

Eight defendants - including two BALCO officials, a chemist and
Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson - pleaded guilty to various charges.

Two others, cycling champion Tammy Thomas and Olympic track coach
Trevor Graham, went to trial in Illston's court and were separately
convicted of lying to investigators or the grand jury.

The five counts against Bonds each carry a theoretical maximum
sentence of 10 years in prison if he is convicted. But on similar
charges, Thomas and Graham were sentenced, respectively, to six months
and one year of home confinement.

Bonds' four alleged lies to the grand jury were statements that he
never knowingly took steroids from Anderson; never was injected by him;
never knowingly took human growth hormone from him; and never took
anything other than vitamins from him before 2003.

When asked, "Did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?"

Bonds answered, "Not that I know of," according to the indictment.

The fifth count accuses Bonds of obstructing justice by giving
testimony that was allegedly "intentionally evasive, false and
misleading" in those and other statements.

The current charges, issued in February, are the fourth version of
an indictment originally filed by a federal grand jury on Nov. 15,
2007.

Federal prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office had hoped Anderson would be a key witness against Bonds.

But Anderson, a childhood friend of Bonds, has told Illston he will
refuse to testify. The trainer is due to appear before the judge
Tuesday morning to say whether he will continue to refuse to take the
stand. Prosecutors have asked Illston to order him imprisoned for
contempt of court for the duration of the trail if he declines to
testify.

Without Anderson's testimony, prosecutors are planning an array of
other evidence to prove their allegation that Bonds had in fact taken
steroids and therefore lied in his 2003 statements.

The evidence will include testimony from six baseball players who
are slated to tell the jury that Anderson gave them
performance-enhancing drugs, according to a prosecution witness list.

Illston has ruled that prosecutors can use that testimony to try to
show that Anderson had access to such drugs, had a plan for
distributing them, and told the players what the drugs were.
But she has said that prosecutors can't argue that the alleged fact
that Anderson gave drugs to other athletes therefore shows that he gave
them to Bonds as well.

An ex-girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, is due to testify about physical
changes in Bonds' body after he allegedly began taking steroids in the
late 1990s.

Prosecutors also want to play a tape of a secretly recorded
conversation between Anderson and Bonds' former business manager, Steve
Hoskins, at the San Francisco Giants clubhouse in the spring of 2003.
In the tape, Anderson refers to having given injections to a person
named "Barry" and to the use of an "undetectable" material that "worked
at the Olympics."

Illston has tentatively ruled the tape can be used as evidence, but
only if prosecutors first prove that the substances mentioned by
Anderson were illegal at the time periods referred to by the trainer.

The selection of the 12 jurors and four alternates will begin with
the questioning of an initial pool of 50 prospective jurors in
Illston's Federal Building courtroom.

The candidates have already filled out an 18-page questionnaire with
queries such as whether they know any of the lawyers or witnesses in
the case; whether they know of Congressional hearings on the steroid
use by Major League Baseball players; and whether they have attended a
Giants game in the past five years.

The aim is to get a group of 36 potential jurors after candidates
who are unable to serve have been dismissed, either because they may be
biased in favor of one side or the other, or for other reasons.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers will then take turns exercising
so-called peremptory challenges, in which they can dismiss jury
candidates without giving a reason.

Under court rules, prosecutors can use peremptory challenges to
dismiss a total of eight potential regular jurors and alternates, while
the defense can dismiss 12.

That part of the process is done silently, and when it is over, the
court will be left with 12 jurors and four alternates. The jurors will
be identified only by number and not by name.

If the selection goes quickly and smoothly, opening statements could begin as early as Tuesday morning.

Four New York Times journalists who had gone missing in Libya will be released
soon, it was reported on Friday. The journalists had entered Libya
through Egypt and were reporting from the rebel held city of Ajdabiya,
which was then overrun by the pro-Gadaffi army and they were arrested.
Libyan officials have indicated that the journalists will be released
very soon. Four Al Jazeera journalists are also said to be in custody
in Tripoli, while two Agence France-Presse journalists and a Getty
Images photographer have been missing in Libya since Saturday.

Just as US Tomahawk missiles rain down on another Muslim nation,
we’re about to give the entire Muslim world another reason to distrust
and even hate Americans. A cache of photographs published by Der
Spiegel show an Army Stryker “kill team” in Afghanistan posing with dead bodies
they recently killed. Many of the members of this team are already
under trial for, among other things, the murder of the Afghans in the
photos.

Some of the activities of the
self-styled “kill team” are already public, with 12 men currently on
trial in Seattle for their role in the killing of three civilians.

Five of the soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder, after
they staged killings to make it look like they were defending
themselves from Taliban attacks.

Other charges include the mutilation of corpses, the possession of images of human casualties and drug abuse [...]
An investigation by Der Spiegel has unearthed approximately 4,000 photos and videos taken by the men.

The magazine, which is planning to publish only three images, said
that in addition to the crimes the men were on trial for there are
“also entire collections of pictures of other victims that some of the
defendants were keeping”.

These are not the pictures that President Obama tried to block
in 2009, because the incidents from this Army Stryker unit Der Spiegel
describes in their story are from 2010. So the change in
commanders-in-chief has not occasioned a halt to atrocities and war
crimes in Afghanistan. While Der Spiegel may publish only three
photographs for now, I wouldn’t be surprised if more became available.
But there’s plenty of detail in the article, according to the Guardian
account, to cause outrage in Afghanistan and throughout the world as
well, in addition to the photos. In one incident, a staff sergeant
threw a grenade at an Afghan civilian, killing him, then cut off a
finger and took a tooth as trophies.

I cannot find the article as of press time at the Der Spiegel website. But the pictures are available here, here and here. The AP names the soldiers in the photos holding the corpse by the hair, as well as the corpse:

One shows a key defendant, Specialist
Jeremy N. Morlock of Wasilla, Alaska, grinning as he lifts a corpse’s
head by the hair. Der Spiegel identified the body as that of Gul Mudin,
whom Specialist Morlock claims to have killed with Pfc. Andrew H.
Holmes in Kandahar Province. Another shows Private Holmes, of Boise,
Idaho, lifting the same corpse by the hair.

“Today Der Spiegel published photographs depicting actions repugnant
to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the
United States Army,” the Army said in a statement released by Col.
Thomas Collins. “We apologize for the distress these photos cause.”

As I said, the men in this Stryker unit have been charged with
murder and conspiracy, and not after the publication of these photos,
but well before. In fact, the photos were part of evidence being used
in those court-martial cases, and were kept by the judge under a
protective order until the Der Spiegel publication. That makes this a
slightly different situation than Abu Ghraib.

But that difference is fairly subtle given the depictions involved.
This brutality adds to the long list of actions that can be used to
inflame passions in the Muslim world. It makes any talk by the United
States of a humanitarian mission to protect civilians ring extremely
hollow. And it is a natural consequence of a long and confusing war,
with untold pressures put on soldiers that often manifest in despicable
ways.

These activities can no longer be seen as coincidental or the result
of a “few bad apples” in the military. They have happened so often,
with such regularity, as to be a by-product of a war machine that
continues to invade and occupy foreign countries.

Western
New York Congressional candidate Jack Davis (pictured) said
some things in recent meetings that made even his fellow Republicans
flinch.

As a solution to the black
unemployment problem, Davis suggested shipping inner-city black
youth out to farms, while simultaneously deporting the illegal immigrants who
are working there.

The comments were confirmed by several sources who
attended a Feb. 20th endorsement interview with Davis:

"We have a huge
unemployment problem with black youth in our cities. Put them on buses, take
them out there [to the farms] and pay them a decent wage; they will work."

Republican leadership has now endorsed Davis' rival, Jane
L. Corwin, and said they were shocked by his remarks:

"I was
thunderstruck," said Amherst GOP Chairman Marshall Wood. "Maybe
in 1860 that might have been seen by some as an appropriate comment, but not
now."

The comments by Jack Davis are interesting for a number of reasons.
First, he is committing a political taboo by even mentioning race during his
campaign. President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric
Holder and no one else from the Obama Administration has mentioned race
in public in any significant way for at least a year.

Politicians
seem to feel that race is a volatile, uncomfortable topic that should simply be
avoided at all costs.

For example, rather than discussing their
ongoing advocacy for the mass incarceration of African-American males,
Republicans get away with arguing that those "evil" prison inmates deserve few,
if any, human rights. This allows Republicans to pursue racially divisive and
oppressive political strategies without appearing to sound
racist.

Second, one must at least give Davis credit for
addressing black teen unemployment, which has been as high as 48 percent over
the past several months. The numbers are typically double that of white
teen unemployment.

By even discussing the issue, Davis appears more
willing to confront the black unemployment problem than even our black
president, but by advocating that black teens be shipped to farms to replace
illegal immigrants, Davis shows a degree of condescension in his remarks, which
indicates that he feels that black teens are simply meant to be farm
workers and not much more.

Finally, by pushing for the
deportation of illegal immigrants, Davis' remarks have an unpopular
protectionist appeal that makes him sound like a racist old man pushing for
class warfare among minority groups.

Not much is to be gained when blacks
become angry at illegal immigrants for allegedly stealing their jobs. The truth
is that we should all be pushing for paths to legalization and a sustainable
living wage for all workers within our borders.

As it stands, American
corporations have been allowed to pillage the American worker, strip him/her of
significant bargaining power and keep wages lower than they need to be. Also, by
using illegal immigrant labor, corporations are undermining the existing labor
market and making it all too difficult for people to make an honest living. At
the end of the day, something has got to give, and American corporate behavior
must be readily confronted.

Do I consider Jack Davis to be a racist? Not
any more than his Republican colleagues. The truth is that he's an old candidate
who simply says what's on his mind, which is a no-no in American
politics.

I also can't help but wonder if Republican leadership just
happened to reveal his remarks to the public because they were pushing for a
different candidate. The truth is that someone in our government needs to help
address the black unemployment problem, and although his remarks were tasteless
and misguided, I give Jack Davis credit for trying.

Bill Cosby and Russell Simmons (Getty/AP Images)
Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons claims that he received some interesting up close and personal treatment from the great Bill Cosby
recently when the two met back stage at a show in honor of Sean "Diddy" Combs.
According to Simmons, he approached Cosby to apologize for an open letter he'd written
criticizing Cosby's attacks on black youth. In response, Cosby allegedly told
Simmons to "Get the f**k out of" his face. If only Cosby had used this language
during those Jello Pudding Pop commercials; I would have bought a whole lot more
of them.

Cosby's allegedly bold, yet tasteless interaction with Simmons is interesting
for a number of reasons. First, it signifies that Bill Cosby truly believes what
he says and that he's not into the BS of it all. Most public figures are
incredibly passive-aggressive, smiling in your face and stabbing you in the back
-- all at the same time. Personally, it irritates me, and is part of a game that
I never want to learn how to play. In that regard, I respect Cosby's candor: If
you don't like someone, there's no need in pretending that you do.

On the other hand, Cosby's reaction to Simmons didn't have to be so egregious
and confrontational. Bill Cosby disrespects both himself and Russell Simmons
with his alleged remark, and the public has come to expect a degree of class
from Cosby that he doesn't seem to feel inclined to deliver. He gets a pass
because of his age however, for none of us knows what might be going on inside
the mind of this elderly man as he hits his twilight years. We also can't deny
the impact that his son's tragic murder has had on
Cosby's tolerance for the effects of hip-hop culture.

With regard to the issue at hand, both Simmons and Cosby are correct and
incorrect in their respective positions. Cosby's critique
on the black community was somewhat accurate, but ultimately incomplete. The
same courage with which he attacked single black mothers and jobless youth for
their behavior should have been replicated in challenging the powers that be to
modify their creation of the conditions to which young black people are
responding. As Cosby spoke heartily about kids pulling their pants up and
marrying their baby's mamas, he should have spoken just as readily about mass
incarceration, failed educational systems in the inner city and our nation's
lack of interest in unprecedented levels of black unemployment.

Russell Simmons is right to stand up for black youth in the face of Cosby's
inter-generational assault, for there were few powerful men willing to take a
position opposite that of Bill Cosby. But Simmons must also be careful not to
come off as the doting parent who excuses every ridiculous thing his child does.
Keeping his bank account full by releasing hip-hop albums that promote both derogatory
language and dysfunctional
concepts is hardly the way for a black man to make an honest living. In
order for Simmons to show true advocacy and love for the urban youth he
represents, there is a time where he must trade in profitability for
accountability. It's one thing to rap about the terrible conditions under which
you were born, and another thing to mass promote a destructive lifestyle that
threatens the very existence of the entire black community.

When it's all said and done, both Cosby and Simmons are powerful men with
strong opinions. I personally favor Russell's
decency in handling the dispute, for Cosby doesn't need to curse anyone out.
But when it comes to making our community better, we've all got to push
ourselves to appreciate other points of view and even admit when the other guy
has a good point. Neither Cosby nor Simmons has all the answers and I hope they
both understand that.

FROM THE FINAL CALL:
Minister Louis Farrakhan blasted President Obama and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton for their "arrogance" in meddling in another sovereign
nation's affairs and publicly recommending regime change. He then
instructed Americans to look beneath the surface to see who stands to
benefit from the unrest and warned Obama to be careful of the words
coming from advisors lobbying him to move in with military forces to
depose Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.

Dennis
Kucinich wants to impeach Barack Obama. The Ohio Congressman believes
that Obama violated the Constitution by attacking Libya. His particular
point of contention is that only Congress has the power to declare war.

In 2009, Kucinich announced his intention to invoke the 1973 War
Powers Act and bring the troops home from Afghanistan. That did not go
anywhere, which shows how marginalized Kucinich is even within the
Democratic Party.

Obama did consult with some members of Congress in what has been described
more as a “cattle call” than a consultation. Even House Speaker John
Boehner believes that Obama needs to do more with consulting Congress.

The difference is that Boehner has all his screws tightened, Kucinich, on the other hand, is…well, Kucinich.

With six months to go in George W. Bush’s second term, Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment. The year before he tried
to impeach Dick Cheney. That failed so he moved onto Bush. If Kucinich
had succeeded then the man he thought should have been removed as
Vice-President would have become President. Kucinich was probably the
only person in America who wanted to see Dick Cheney become President.

Onto 2011 and Kucinich is once again discussing impeachment, but this time of a fellow Democrat.

Kucinich has
been a harsh critic of Obama continuing many of the Bush administration
policies, but this step sets him permanently into the gadfly hall of
fame.

Obama has
not done anything different than other Presidents have done for years.
In today’s world of fast-changing events and instant communications, it
is nearly impossible to follow the procedure to war as defined
originally in the Constitution. Part of the reason is that the military
actions now undertaken by the United States are beyond any imagined by
the Founding Fathers.

It is a
different world with instant communications. The biggest victory of the
War of 1812 was fought after a peace treaty was signed. Today, the
world can be destroyed within 30 minutes by firing nuclear missiles.
Presenting a resolution of war while Gaddafi walks through Bengazi,
slaughters his people and the rest of the Libyan rebels is quaint. As with all other powers defined in the Constitution, this one too has led to modern interpretations.

Congress
still has the authority to stop a military action. However, to rely on
the War Powers Act to enforce consultations, which is of questionable
constitutionality itself, is a weak-legged stool to stand upon. Even
drawing upon the Constitution’s language that Congress has the power to
declare war is an unsteady argument.

Kucinich revealed
his own foreign policy naivety by releasing a press release last week
criticizing Obama for not recognizing Muammar Gaddafi’s call for a
ceasefire. Gaddafi may have called for that, but he never recognized it
himself. It seems the only person who recognized it was Kucinich.

Outside of a
handful of other liberals of Kucinich’s ilk and isolationist
Republicans like Ron Paul, no one will take Kucinich seriously.

Like the
birthers on the right, Kucinich makes a convenient left-wing foil for
Barack Obama. It makes Obama appear moderate, even conservatives rally
to support Obama on this one when Kucinich begins to spout off with
nonsense of impeachment.

In the end,
none of this bluster will amount to anything. This may be posturing by
Kucinich who ran for president in 2004 and 2008. It has long been my
contention that Obama will face a challenge from the left for his
renomination. Bill Clinton is the only Democratic incumbent not to face
a significant challenge in his own party, unless one wants to consider
Lyndon LaRouche, who is Gaddafi-like crazy, as significant.

This may be the opening bell for another Kucinich presidential campaign.

On Friday, March 18 President Obama all but announced that the U.S.
will soon engage in another unjust war in the Middle East. This in
addition to the overt wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and several covert
wars in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and other locations. This new war
must be opposed.

Obama’s war announcement occurred one day after the U.N. Security
Council voted for war by calling for a no-fly zone over Libya and
authorizing "all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian
populated areas under threat of attack ... including Benghazi, while
excluding an occupation force." This vote in essence opens the way for
a war led by Western Imperialist powers in Libya.
The U.N. resolution was passed on a 10-0 vote, with five
abstentions. The U.S. and its allies lobbied heavily for the vote and
to prevent Russia and China from vetoing it.

On Friday Obama made it clear that the U.S. and its allies were ready
to launch a military action against Libya. He threatened that if
Moammar Qaddafi didn't immediately halt all attacks on civilians in
Libya and pull back his forces from Benghazi and other Libyan cities
that the U.N. resolution would be "enforced through military action."

Obama declared that, "These terms are not subject to negotiations." In
order to quiet opposition to these war moves, Obama stated, "The U.S.
is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. We are not going to
use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection
of civilians in Libya."

But just because the U.S. does not use “ground troops” doesn’t mean
that U.S. military forces will not be heavily involved in war, and in
fact orchestrating this war. The Reuters newswire service reported that
the U.S. military was preparing to deploy additional amphibious assault
ships to the Mediterranean in the next few days. This is in addition to
the numerous U.S. naval and air forces already deployed in the region.

No one should be surprised if the U.S. actually does deploy ground
troops, despite Obama’s statements. Once war is launched it is hard to
stop the momentum toward all out war. Just look at the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of troops and war contractors
are on the ground in those nations long after the U.S. political and
military leadership declared they had accomplished their missions, only
to face reality that these unjust wars, wars in which the overwhelming
majority of deaths, casualties and suffering is inflicted on civilians,
are not easily “won”..

Obama bragged that the action would be done in cooperation with France
and Britain. That changes nothing about the nature of the war. The
U.S. has allies in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan as well. More
killers do not change anything except the number of victims.

Of course Obama is doing everything he can to obscure the imperialist
nature of this war. Obama declares that his administration is concerned
with the situation in Libya for humanitarian reasons. He maintains that
Qaddafi would commit brutal repression against the Libyan people, and
that his continued rule would destabilize the entire region to the
detriment of U.S. allies and partners. He said, "The Democratic values
we stand for would be overrun," and the "words of the international
community would be rendered hollow."

In reality, the values of the U.S. ruling class are fully expressed in
the murderous wars it is waging in the Middle East and central Asia,
and are being reiterated in its attack upon Libya. For decades in the
Middle East where the U.S. has supported various authoritarian and
dictatorial governments. It still does so in countries like Saudi
Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain.

Of course Qaddafi is brutal and does repress his people. But he has
done so for years with the support of the U.S. Until recently he
cooperated with the imperialist powers. But now that he can no longer
efficiently do the bidding of the U.S. and its allies, they think he
has to go. The actions of the Libyan people, like those of the
Egyptian, Tunisian, and other peoples of the region are destabilizing
the entire region to the detriment of U.S. allies and partners. They
are threatening U.S. domination of the region and worldwide hegemony.
The U.S. is now getting involved to prevent any further threats to its
empire and not to protect democracy or the Libyan people. Real power in
the hands of the people of the Middle East is one of the greatest
threats to the imperialist stability needed by the U.S. Empire.

On March 19 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to go to
Paris to engage in discussions regarding the enforcement of the U.N.
resolution. Before the United Nations vote, Clinton stated a U.N.
no-fly zone over Libya would require the bombing of targets to remove
the threat posed by Qaddafi's regime. The wording of this resolution
allows a much larger war than a “no fly zone”.. “…All necessary
measures” is very broad language.

And the past should be very instructive about the imposition of no-fly
zones. The most recent no-fly zones were in the former Yugoslavia and
Iraq. Both of those evolved into massive wars with much death and
destruction of innocent people in those nations. What makes anyone
think this will be any different?

People in Libya or anywhere else on this planet will achieve only
domination and oppression by relying on the U.S. in their just
struggles. The U.S. imperialists have fought many wars and they were
generally disguised with words such as freedom and democracy. They
always declare that their enemy consisted of tyrants, dictators,
communists, terrorists, etc. But each time we have been misled and
never told the true motives of the people who rule the global American
empire. We can not afford to be lied to again.

Congress’
reaction to President Obama’s decision to launch a military
intervention in Libya has been supine even by Congress’ usual
standards. Congress vigorously debated and refused to authorize
President Clinton’s military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 (Clinton
intervened anyway). Congress debated and authorized the attacks on
Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Yet Congress has been mostly
silent about the intervention in Libya. Why?

President Obama is
following a long line of precedents in which the executive lanched a
foreign war without congressional authorization. The president
disavowed these precedents during his campaign; he may or may not
attempt to distinguish his campaign statement by invoking the UN
security council resolution authorizing the attack, as Truman did for
Korea. But this legal wrangling is all superstructure. Congress is
disabled in numerous ways from making practical contributions to a war
effort. It cannot prevent the president from starting a war, and it is
nearly impossible to halt an ongoing war. Wars, then, simply become an
opportunity for members of Congress to stake their reputations as hawks
or doves for the sake of future elections.

The Libya
intervention provides an instructive example of the disabilities
hampering Congress. Events in Libya unfolded with extraordinary
rapidity, while the proper American stance depended on numerous
constantly changing factors—the security situation in Libya, the
attitudes of neighboring states and their populations, and the
positions of foreign powers such as the UK, France, China, and Russia.
A major source of complexity is that these various attitudes and
positions depended in part on what other people thought the United
States would do. The rebels might hold out if they believed that the
United States would intervene, and by holding out possibly prevail
without American intervention. The UK and France might sound the
tocsins of war only as long as they believed that the United States
would support them if they obtained the acquiescence of other
countries, which in turn would care about American attitudes as well.
As these various actors calculated their moves, they sent out feelers
to the U.S. executive and received responses—promises, hints,
suggestions. Eventually, international opinion coalesced and military
intervention followed.

Congress could not play a role. Lacking a
leader who could commit it to a course of action, Congress could not
make promises. Lacking a single mouthpiece, it could not be consulted.
Foreign countries naturally turned to the president. Nor is it
realistic for Congress to formally ratify the president’s decision if
formal ratification involves the possibility of rejection. Then the
next time that the United States is involved in a foreign policy
crisis, other countries won’t know who to speak to, and who to believe.

We live in a system of executive primacy, as Adrian Vermeule and I have argued in our new book, The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic.
It is a consequence of natural institutional developments and
necessities. The contrary view, which was written into the U.S.
Constitution, could survive only as long as the United States was
protected by two oceans from foreign threats and could focus on
territorial expansion within a continent populated only by Indians, who
were never a major threat—and even then it was honored more in the
breach than in the observance. Those who are skeptical about the Libya
intervention should address their policy arguments to the executive,
and stop complaining that Congress has not authorized the war. Here
is Jack Goldsmith arguing that Obama will invoke the UN Security
Council resolution as his legal justification (why this is necessary
after Clinton’s Kosovo intervention, which had no such resolution, is
not explained); here
is Andrew Sullivan arguing that Congress should do something, anything
(“A congressional vote is also important to rein in the imperial
presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height then even
Bush.”); and here is Ilya Somin’s post on the topic yesterday describing the protests of “several” (nine!) members of Congress.

SCLC TODAY

TODAY'S NEWS NJ

To Contact Today's News NJ

Frontline: Raising Adam Lanza

In the wake of the mass killings at Sandy Hook, FRONTLINE looks for answers to the elusive question: who was Adam Lanza?

Blog Talk Radio: Antoinette Harrell

Is genealogy a hobby or not for people of African Descent?

Today's News NJ

TODAY'S NEWS NJ

Advertise

Today’s News NJ is an extremely fast growing news blog, pulling in over 10,000 views a month and growing every day! Currently we are building a reputation of a reliable news source, striving to provide relevant, useful, make sense news topics that promise to provide insight into world, national and state news stories that affect you, your family, your neighborhood and your country.

We are also in the process of vast expansion. With the roll out of a new format, we have finally jumped the hurdle from just another blog to a credible news site. Our rankings on Google News and other news collector sites are rising every day. We are in the works on several expansions that will grow the Today’s News NJ community to even new heights! An open forum, a newsletter, members section, print editorials and ultimately a radio show are just some of the plans in the making..

All of this expansion will grow us to the status of common household name sites such as the Huffington Post and Politico. However, we don’t plan to stop there! We hope to provide an alternative media outlet for unbiased, insightful news that you can benefit from and to provide stories and information you may not find on other larger news outlets.

Why advertise with Today’s News NJ?

Today’s News NJ Blog is among the most visited and influential political and News Blogs in New Jersey. Blognetnews New Jersey consistently ranks Today’s News NJ among the top 5 most influential Blogs in the state and has been featured on websites like CNN, Washington Post, The Star Ledger and Fanhouse.com news website a number of times. You can purchase a side banner on Today’s News NJ Blog for $50.00 a month or a once daily in-post ad for $100.00 per month. The banners will appear on each and every page of Today’s News NJ Blog.

For More Information Call: (609) 393 1830 or E-mail: gcw2008@gmail.comYou can purchase a side banner on Today’s News NJ Blog for $50 a month or or an across the top rectangular ad for $100.00 per month. The banners will appear on each and every page of Today’s News NJ Blog. http://www.todaysnewsnj.blogspot/